Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 35 (3.41 seconds)Section 48 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
The Gift-Tax Act, 1958
Section 54 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 45 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 263 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Shoorji Vallabhdas And Co. on 27 March, 1962
(iv) CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 0144 (SC);
Dr.(Smt) P.K.Vasanthi Rangarajan vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 6 July, 2012
Therefore, respectfully following the judgment of the
Hon`ble Madras High Court in case of Dr. (Smt.) P. K. Vasanthi
Rangarajan (supra), we allow ground No.2 raised by the assessee."
K.P. Varghese vs The Income Tax Officer,Ernakulam, And ... on 4 September, 1981
Association [1980] 121 ITR 1/[19791 2
Taxman 501 (SC), besides in the case of K. P. Varghese (supra),
also concluding the matter. The gist thereof, or atleast to a
substantial extent, stands in fact already brought out in the
22
ITA No.1205/DEL/2021
ITA No.1834/DEL/2021
earlier part of this order while discussing the several arguments
urged before us. All that is logical relevant, yielding insight into
the purpose and object for and toward which the amendment
stands brought, should be admissible. A casus omissus cannot be
readily inferred, and the courts eschew supplying the same
except in the case of clear necessity. The court cannot read
anything into a statutory provision which is plain and
unambiguous; a statute being an edict of the Legislature. The
language employed in a statue is a determinative factor of the
legislative intent, the foundational basis of any interpretation, is
0 be found from the words used by the Legislature itself.